University of Calgary appeals decision re Facebook criticism of prof

The University of Calgary is appealing a court ruling that it violated the Charter rights of two students when it disciplined them for criticizing a professor on Facebook

The university said it is appealing the precedent-setting ruling from Court of Queen’s Bench to get clarity on the reach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on university campuses.

Twins Keith and Steven Pridgen were placed on probation in 2008 after starting a Facebook page called “I no longer fear Hell, I took a course with Aruna Mitra”, who

Keith and Steven Pridgen, 21, were placed on probation in 2008 for statements made starting in November 2007 on a Facebook page entitled “I no longer fear Hell, I took a course with Aruna Mitra.” Mitra no longer teaches at the U of C.

Keith Pridgen is quoted in the Calgary Herald as saying he isn’t concerned about the appeal. .”I’m kind of glad the university fought against us the whole way . . . .Everything they tried to sweep under the rug was brought out into public awareness.”

University lawyer Kevin Barr said it’s “simply outrageous” to suggest that defamatory statements by a student about a professor does not amount to non-academic misconduct. Mitra claimed her reputation was damaged but did not testify during the university’s hearings so the only evidence was hearsay.

As is the case with many other social conflicts, this one is the direct result of the nature of post secondary education, that is, its public nature. Because these institutions are supported by taxpayer dollars, taxpayers rightly claim ownership, as do thevancouversunistrators, professors and students. If this was a private institution, those who have their money invested would have the right to decide who to hire and what customers they wish to patronize them. Any student would have the right to state their opinion of the service provided and more importantly would have many more options to shop elsewhere. Thus you avoid the conflicts inherent in public institutions. The student may say what he wishes and may shop elsewhere and the institution can decide whether it wishes to have the student as a student. Conflict resolved.

What a waste of money and resources! I would urge all U of C alumni to let Chancellor Dinning know in no uncertain terms that this is a ridiculous way for the university to piss away their valuable donations and bequests. His office phone number is 403-220-6581. At trial, there was no evidence presented that Prof. Mitra’s reputation, or that of the U of C, was harmed in any way. Prof. Mitra herself has (to the best of my knowledge) declined to file any charges for libel or claim any kind of damages. If she had done so, and won, then perhaps the U of C would have a viable case for charging both students with non-academic misconduct; until that happens, they do not. So what’s the point of an expensive and tedious legal appeal, other than the U of C trying to extract some sort of silly and pernicious revenge from these young men? All they did was simply publish opinions on the quality of their educational experience at the U of C, opinions which, while perhaps offensive to Administration, may be scholastically quite valid and demonstrable? Whatever happened to the concept of our universities being bastions of free thought, free speech and considered, measured debate? Now all the U of C does is boorishly yell like some Ranchman’s drunk, “Siddown and shaddup, ya punks!” Shame on both you and your staff, Chancellor Dinning. Can’t you find something better for your lawyers to do, in order to earn their no doubt outrageous retainers?